If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

He's not gone *YET* - he will still be in office until the end of the final session of the year in December. I don't want to try to make any bets what the lame duck session will look like leading up to Christmas.

I stand corrected - at least as it goes with his "secondary office" INSIDE Congress [MAJORITY LEADER].

Apparently he is going to resign from that office. (I'm probably corrected elsewhere, but I'll wait until the Thread Notifications later today to read through stuff...assuming they come through today. Lately they've been "behaving" properly.)

BOSS: I'm sorry, but I'll have to lay you and Jack off.
SUE: Can you just jack off? I feel like shit today.

"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires" - Susan B. Anthony

If Mary gave birth to Jesus, and Jesus is the Lamb of God, did Mary have a little lamb?

I just watched Eric Cantor on TV at his news conference as he said he would step down as majority leader. But at same time I had to vomit hearing all the great things he and his party have accomplished to make America better. But did not mention no increase in minimum wages, unemployment insurance for workers, tax cuts for middle class, how deal with the environment. How they shut the government down.

Mr. Cantor you help to create your own defeat by embracing the Tea Party and its movement. You got tea bagged.

So borders never matter is what you are telling me? And people never pay for crossing onto lands illegal to them, thats what u r telling me, right?

That's the way that Kulindahr put it. The way that I would have responded would have been that I find it pretty sick when people dig up questionable Native heritage or authority to defend white people who feel grossed out at having to share land with Latino people who were actually here historically much, much longer than anglo nortes. The position doesn't make any logical sense whatsoever even if taken at face value.

That's the way that Kulindahr put it. The way that I would have responded would have been that I find it pretty sick when people dig up questionable Native heritage or authority to defend white people who feel grossed out at having to share land with Latino people who were actually here historically much, much longer than anglo nortes. The position doesn't make any logical sense whatsoever even if taken at face value.

The people coming into the country now, are not the ones who were here historically. At some point we need to consider what is best for those who are here.

A majority of Americans support immigration reform but you'd be naive to think the most support giving illegals citizenship. A majority of Americans support the conservative side of the argument which is why nothing will be done in Congress about it.

Nope. A majority support a pathway to citizenship as well. Even Fox News' poll shows it.

The people coming into the country now, are not the ones who were here historically. At some point we need to consider what is best for those who are here.

If you held to this claim with any shred of integrity, you'd begin by supporting a full scale Israel Treatment-esque level of foreign aid and developmental support to reservations to bring all reservations up to middle class first world standards of living, education, law enforcement, drinking water, sanitation, housing and infrastructure.

But I think we know what we're all really talking about is keeping America white and English-speaking. It has nothing to do with recognizing and respecting the need to care first for those who were here first.

I think there's a fair chance background checks will end up being required for all sales at gun shows.

Technology has also evolved greatly in the past ten years, as I think about it now. I remember 10-15 years ago there was talk about how background checks should be done at gun shows, and my thought was "How in the hell can they do THAT? That's impossible!" Now probably nearly every gun dealer has a smartphone, and a background check is only a few clicks away. The old hurdles are gone.

Originally Posted by frankfrank

(I'm probably corrected elsewhere, but I'll wait until the Thread Notifications later today to read through stuff...assuming they come through today. Lately they've been "behaving" properly.)

Just as soon as I say that, the daily notifications GET FUCKED UP again. Damn it!! Nothing at all today. (I do have a work-around, but I don't like it...)

Originally Posted by hotatlboi

Nope. A majority support a pathway to citizenship as well. Even Fox News' poll shows it.

Your post is correct; the posts which say that a majority does not support amnesty is ALSO correct.

A "pathway to citizenship" is NOT the same thing as the amnesty granted under Reagan many years ago (1986?). Certainly it is far less than a majority who are OK with amnesty, where the Feds just simply say "So, as long as you can prove that you were already in the United States by [the date that the amnesty becomes reality], you're good to go - no problem!"

The "path to citizenship" requires some work, some effort, perhaps some fines which might be stiff, some compliance, and some proof that you're not a criminal likely to take advantage of people and/or the system. Unlike amnesty, undocumented immigrants are NOT simply "good-to-go" just because they're here already, but they have hoops to jump through.

I'm fine with that, but not with mere, outright amnesty.

I'm still not sure what to do with the children yet, and that is becoming a horrific humanitarian tragedy.

BOSS: I'm sorry, but I'll have to lay you and Jack off.
SUE: Can you just jack off? I feel like shit today.

"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires" - Susan B. Anthony

If Mary gave birth to Jesus, and Jesus is the Lamb of God, did Mary have a little lamb?

Dude, immigration reform is WAY FAR down the list of what MOST americans want and need. Your "poll" results are based on if "immigration reform" is the ONLY priority.

MOST Americans wants job, affordable energy/fuel, affordable food, affordable housing, affordable education, GOOD education, there are soooooooo many other issues that are PRIORITY over immigration reform for americans, yet, the media will make us believe immigration is the ONLY ISSUE WE THINK about, and i feel bad for the people who allow to keep themselves in such a dumb senseless stupid little bubble.

Technology has also evolved greatly in the past ten years, as I think about it now. I remember 10-15 years ago there was talk about how background checks should be done at gun shows, and my thought was "How in the hell can they do THAT? That's impossible!" Now probably nearly every gun dealer has a smartphone, and a background check is only a few clicks away. The old hurdles are gone.

Last gun show I was at, every dealer had a dedicated phone just for the NICS -- some had more than one. And a lot ofprivate sellers were lining up to use them.

Originally Posted by frankfrank

Your post is correct; the posts which say that a majority does not support amnesty is ALSO correct.

A "pathway to citizenship" is NOT the same thing as the amnesty granted under Reagan many years ago (1986?). Certainly it is far less than a majority who are OK with amnesty, where the Feds just simply say "So, as long as you can prove that you were already in the United States by [the date that the amnesty becomes reality], you're good to go - no problem!"

The "path to citizenship" requires some work, some effort, perhaps some fines which might be stiff, some compliance, and some proof that you're not a criminal likely to take advantage of people and/or the system. Unlike amnesty, undocumented immigrants are NOT simply "good-to-go" just because they're here already, but they have hoops to jump through.

Kicking them out would be impossible, totally aside from the moral aspect. Thus, penalties in place -- and I like fines; dedicate the money to the border.

Though I still like the idea of putting an armored division base on the border, and conducting maneuvers....

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Dude, immigration reform is WAY FAR down the list of what MOST americans want and need. Your "poll" results are based on if "immigration reform" is the ONLY priority.

MOST Americans wants job, affordable energy/fuel, affordable food, affordable housing, affordable education, GOOD education, there are soooooooo many other issues that are PRIORITY over immigration reform for americans, yet, the media will make us believe immigration is the ONLY ISSUE WE THINK about, and i feel bad for the people who allow to keep themselves in such a dumb senseless stupid little bubble.

Immigration reform is not totally separate from those issues.

But first we need to undo the tax cuts all the way back to Reagan, drop the standard deduction, and set the individual exemption at the federal poverty level. Then we can start fixing infrastructure, without which business is not going to thrive.

But if we put more Tea Party people in Congress, the only thing that won't suffer is business for banks and big corporations.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

That's the way that Kulindahr put it. The way that I would have responded would have been that I find it pretty sick when people dig up questionable Native heritage or authority to defend white people who feel grossed out at having to share land with Latino people who were actually here historically much, much longer than anglo nortes. The position doesn't make any logical sense whatsoever even if taken at face value.

Do you hate white people? Really? It seems that way.

And "latino's" were NoT here historically longer. American INDIANS were here longer, NOT "latinos". And even before caucasians arrived, there is evidence African and pacific islander Asians may have also arrived and interbred with south american indians LONG before europeans ever arrived.

YOUR logic seems even more skewed than kuhlindars.

And, by the way, i am a navajo indian so don't even accuse me of being some white race supremacist cause thats just stupid if you do.

But first we need to undo the tax cuts all the way back to Reagan, drop the standard deduction, and set the individual exemption at the federal poverty level. Then we can start fixing infrastructure, without which business is not going to thrive.

But if we put more Tea Party people in Congress, the only thing that won't suffer is business for banks and big corporations.

Dude, you say a lot NOTHING, really.

Taxes? My point was Americans have OTHER HIGHEr priorities than immigration reform and you bring up removing tax cuts? Really?

But first we need to undo the tax cuts all the way back to Reagan, drop the standard deduction, and set the individual exemption at the federal poverty level. Then we can start fixing infrastructure, without which business is not going to thrive.

But if we put more Tea Party people in Congress, the only thing that won't suffer is business for banks and big corporations.

Americans support single payer by 70% at least
They support immigration reform by 70% plus or minus?
We support increasing taxes on the rich, increasing wages for working people

None of this gets done and your right big businesses and banks will be fine but not every business no matter how big or small will survive once even larger monopolies start forming.

Cantors loss was partly because of big business and the horrible effects it has on the voters in his district.
Washington post:

For one, they lost a major defender of their favored policies--from the beneficial tax treatment of private equity income to immigration reforms favored by the country's biggest tech companies. But even worse for their prospects, Cantor lost to a challenger who specifically attacked him for his close ties to big business -- going so far as to single out the BRT and the Chamber.

And "latino's" were NoT here historically longer. American INDIANS were here longer, NOT "latinos". And even before caucasians arrived, there is evidence African and pacific islander Asians may have also arrived and interbred with south american indians LONG before europeans ever arrived.

YOUR logic seems even more skewed than kuhlindars.

And, by the way, i am a navajo indian so don't even accuse me of being some white race supremacist cause thats just stupid if you do.

The people coming into the country now, are not the ones who were here historically. At some point we need to consider what is best for those who are here.

Prior to 1965, there were no quotas on immigrants from Latin America. The Immigration Act changed the quota system to permit more immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe, Asia, the Middle East and Africa. But I believe it imposed quotas on immigrants from Latin America.

Sometimes, I swear "immigration reform" is more a pundit/white liberal concern as a "top priority" than among Hispanic-Americans. I remain convinced that even if some "deal" came through, neither side would benefit greatly from it electorally.

^It's because those "illegals" when they become "citizens" will most likely vote Democrat which is why the GOP fears amnesty. Unless the Democrats or the GOP get both Houses back, immigration reform just won't happen.

So borders never matter is what you are telling me? And people never pay for crossing onto lands illegal to them, thats what u r telling me, right?

Originally Posted by xbuzzerx

That's the way that Kulindahr put it.

Really? Where did I put it that way?

I challenged him on that and he never responded.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

^It's because those "illegals" when they become "citizens" will most likely vote Democrat which is why the GOP fears amnesty. Unless the Democrats or the GOP get both Houses back, immigration reform just won't happen.

That certainly is part of the problem, and the converse is true. The reason the Democrats want amnesty for untold millions--11 million was some time ago and more flooding in every day--and a quick path to citizenship, is that Hispanics vote overwhelmingly Democrat. The Democrat version of Democracy is that if the people do not give us everything we want we will just flood the country with desperately poor foreigners eager to vote high taxes on Americans to pay for freebies for immigrants. Eventually they will achieve the one party democracy as in Chicago. With democrat control of elections there has been no Republican mayor since 1936. Mexico and Russia have democrat style one party pseudo democracies, and once in place it is permanent.

And "latino's" were NoT here historically longer. American INDIANS were here longer, NOT "latinos". And even before caucasians arrived, there is evidence African and pacific islander Asians may have also arrived and interbred with south american indians LONG before europeans ever arrived.

YOUR logic seems even more skewed than kuhlindars.

And, by the way, i am a navajo indian so don't even accuse me of being some white race supremacist cause thats just stupid if you do.

It still makes utterly no sense as a Native to say "oh I totally identify with white North Americans not wanting to have to deal with an influx of any Hispanic immigrants, most of whom have Native blood themselves, because they're unwanted alien interlopers."

And yes, Spanish-Indian people whom we today call "Latino" or "Hispanic" preceded northwestern European colonial presence here by a couple of centuries. Your "Native blood" doesn't add any credibility or even any sense to saying "I can relate to how white Euros feel about people who were here before they were, and not wanting to share geopolitical space with them."

It's a stupid argument. I don't care if you are or aren't Navajo, trotting out Native blood or a claim to it that none of us can possibly substantiate to shore up a questionable echoing of white sentiment against non-white cultures is still ridiculous and if anything, bringing it up as if it imparts additional credibility hints at the weakness of your position.

That certainly is part of the problem, and the converse is true. The reason the Democrats want amnesty for untold millions--11 million was some time ago and more flooding in every day--and a quick path to citizenship, is that Hispanics vote overwhelmingly Democrat. The Democrat version of Democracy is that if the people do not give us everything we want we will just flood the country with desperately poor foreigners eager to vote high taxes on Americans to pay for freebies for immigrants. Eventually they will achieve the one party democracy as in Chicago. With democrat control of elections there has been no Republican mayor since 1936. Mexico and Russia have democrat style one party pseudo democracies, and once in place it is permanent.

You can repeat this all day and it will remain a circumstantial argument. The immigration reform debate has been going on for decades. Until the last few election cycles no one regarded immigrants en masse as a "potential Democratic voting base." If anything until recently it was presumed they would side with the GOP on socially conservative platform items. So it makes no sense at all to conclude that the Democratic drive behind immigration reform has always been based on information from the future that Republicans would do such a good job of presenting themselves as would-be persecutors and deporters of immigrants that they would drive them largely into Democratic voting patterns.

If anything has willfully created large numbers of immigrant Democratic voters, it's been the GOP and their insistence on pandering politically to what angry white voters want to believe. Not an imaginary, illicit DNC plot going back 30 years to bring in hispanics to win elections.

Maybe, if, and only if, they were willing to give up their right to vote in the Democrat primary. You can only vote in one party primary, not both.

Frankly, I find it unbelievable that any real Democrat could possibly vote for Brat. Just the thought of him representing me sends shivers down my spine.

Originally Posted by JackinSea

The crossover voter theory is undermined by the fact that the more heavily Republican the area, the better Brat did.

Correct. I think this question is largely settled, though perhaps also instructive.

Some Democrats surely selected a Republican ballot and voted for David Brat, but Cantor's loss seems to be much more the result of weak support among Republican voters, some of whom showed up for a race they typically ignore to vote for the tea party conservative who was besieged with attack ads.

GREAT NEWS!!!! Cantor, with his national power in the house, was ready to legalize millions of ILLEGALS!!! Us american indians never secured our borders and we were run over, many indian populations are now extinct as a result. Secure the border, get people thru the RIGHT process and it is corrected. Its not wrong to be pro immigration, AS LONG AS IT IS LEGAL.

Speak for yourself pal..................As a Native American (Abenaki) I have no problem with immigrants seeking a better life.

Taxes? My point was Americans have OTHER HIGHEr priorities than immigration reform and you bring up removing tax cuts? Really?

How does your brain operate? Really?

The country is falling apart because successive administrations and Congresses have been eagerly rearranging the tax structure to funnel the nation's wealth to the filthy rich. You listed a lot of programs -- but generally, people from your side of things don't want anything funded. I just pointed out the first step necessary to do what you said.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Mexico and Russia have democrat style one party pseudo democracies, and once in place it is permanent.

A few years ago Mexico's PRI lost the rule that it had for decades, but not very many years later in 2009 the ruling PAN was again beaten by PRI candidates. (Of course there are always local and regional exceptions.)

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

BOSS: I'm sorry, but I'll have to lay you and Jack off.
SUE: Can you just jack off? I feel like shit today.

"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires" - Susan B. Anthony

If Mary gave birth to Jesus, and Jesus is the Lamb of God, did Mary have a little lamb?

I don't think that was true of the Democratic congress of 2006 - 2010. Nor do I think Obama = Bush.

They're the same in both being owned by the corporations.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

For the last couple of days I've been thinking about and looking into this race because its my district, and the sheer fact of Cantor's defeat blows my mind.

What I strongly disagree with is everyone's assumption that just because Eric Cantor could win here by 17 points, that means any Republican can. The 7th is "deep red" so the pundits say, and Eric Cantor proves it.

I disagree with that logic. We forget that we live in a representative democracy. We elect people to represent us in Washington, not parties, and David Brat has made it abundantly clear that he is nothing like Eric Cantor, but rather far to his right.

What we really should be doing when trying to figure who will win the VA7 2014 race is determine how the candidates will be received by the voters, and infer judgements from there. From what we've learned so far, I believe District 7 voters will reciecve Brat/Trammell in a similar fashion as they did McAuliffe/Cuccinelli in last years governor's race. I hypothozie this for two reasons:

1. Strong similarities between the candidates. Both McAuliffe and Trammell moved to Virginia as adults, and both men worked for Bill Clinton's campaign and at least one other Democratic Presidential bid. Both are also still in regular contact with the Clintons. Cuccinelli and Brat, on the other hand, are both white, male, devoute Roman Catholics, with strong conservative credentials that were endorsed by the Patrick Henry Tea Party.

2. A Libertarian will be running against both Brat and Trammell, just as it was in the governor's race. This is important because we need to entertain the possibility of a Libertarian spoiler, and if there might be one from which canadidate he would take votes.

So off I went to the Virginia Board of Elections website where I quickly realized it doesn't publish results by Congressional district for governor's races(although they do for Senate races for whatever reason), so I put the pertinent information on my own spreadsheet to do the math. The results are below. As far as I know this is the only attempt to determine how the VA7 voted in the 2013 governor's race. The results may surprise you.

Out of 385,882 votes cast in the 7th alone, McAuliffe received 178,331 votes, Cuccinelli won 169,292 votes, and the Libertarian Sarvis got 34,423 votes. McAuliffe won the district by 2 percentage points(46-44), or 9,039 votes. A narrow win for sure. More recent elections point to the 7th as a tossup as well. In 2012, VA7 voted for George Allen by 10 percentage points, but in 2008 it voted for Democrat Mark Warner for Senate by a whopping 21 points. Recent elections go all over the place, and the most recent, and probably most relevant election suggests this race way to close to call.

So why such wide variance? Well, its part gerrymandering, and part a population boom in the Richmond suburbs that's been happening for the past several years. Upon seeing Warner's stunning victory in his district, Cantor gerrymandered VA7 in 2011 by adding New Kent County. This, he thought, would take care of the population increases that resulted in Warner's 2008 landslide, which appeared to be the case in 2012, but now it looks like the suburbs are making a comeback faster than anyone can gerrymander. McAuliffe won Henrico and Richmond, while Cuccinelli won the rural counties all as expected, save for the narrow McAuliffe victory.
But what about Sarvis? Is there any evidence of a spoiler? Well, maybe, maybe not. With the exception of Richmond, the places where Sarvis did the best, were localities that Cuccinelli won is about all we know. While the margin is is certainly close enough to make a difference it remains unclear how many of these people would have voted for Cuccinelli, McAuliffe, or simply stayed home. More than likely its some combination of all three.

The bottom line is without Cantor there is absolutely no evidence that VA7 is "Safe Republican". It's a toss up that depends on voter turnout, and the population of the Richmond suburbs. Whoever wins this race will likely do so by the hair of his chin, and not a broad margin by any means.

The word on the street is that Cantor is considering running as a write-in candidate. The theory is that he actually does have majority support among Republicans, but only the Tea Party turns out to vote in the primaries. And this was a very low turnout primary. Therefore, Cantor could win as a write-in. Cantor's own polls that showed he had 60% support among Republicans may not have been as far off as it seems.

However, if Cantor does run as a write-in candidate, he might also split the Republican vote, giving Trammell a possibility of victory in a heavily Republican district.